Posted on 11/07/2004 3:55:20 PM PST by joanie-f
I believe the three most overpowering crusades that this administration, and the next congress, have to initiate with historically unprecedented passion and resolve are:
(1) containing the threat of terrorism, no matter the financial and (unfortunate) human cost, and no matter the time commitment
(2) seeing to it that Supreme Court and federal judgeship vacancies are filled with justices who have a resolute reverence for the original intent of the Constitution
(3) crushing the massive, unconstitutional power over every aspect of our lives held trial lawyers, by instituting major, unrelenting tort reform measures
There are other, generally economic, issues – major overhaul of Social Security, major revamping of the tax code, and regaining sanity in federal spending and monetary policy -- that need addressing. But the three issues above affect the very lives of every American (and every American in utero), and the minimal acceptable quality of life that every prosperous, free people should be willing to endure.
I do not recall in my lifetime the Republican party enjoying such positive odds for genuine conservative, Constitution-respecting governance. When was the last time a Republican President enjoyed a majority of this size in both houses of Congress? Not during any of our lifetimes, for sure.
There has been no better time in our history for a President and congress to ‘spend their political capital’ to do what is right for this republic. There has been no better time to turn a deaf ear to calls for bipartisanship (from a party that only practices such when it is to their own partisan advantage), calls for healing (from a party whose ideological credo thrives on class/racial/social division), and calls for societal compassion (from a party that employs that altruistic tool only in order to increase the socialist, nanny-state power of government).
In virtually every campaign speech that this President has made over the past year, he stated that he would nominate federal judges who revere the original intent of the US Constitution. With the prospect of one, and maybe two or three, Supreme Court justices retiring within the next four years, there is no greater calling than for him, and senate Republicans, to do all that is within their executive/legislative power to see to it that newly-appointed members of the Supreme Court, and federal judgeships, faithfully adhere to their Constitutional job description.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that the chair of the senate Judiciary Committee to be elected on a seniority basis. The senate may elect anyone from among its membership to chair that all-important committee. It is now time to discard dangerous and liberty-erosive tradition and political protocol and, instead, elect as chairman of the judiciary committee a Constitutional scholar who reveres the genuine Constitutional definition of the judicial branch of government.
Under such a common sense, preserve-America definition, Alren Specter does not qualify.
More than half a million Pennsylvanians foresaw the current major crisis that is facing us regarding the potential appointment of Arlen Specter as chair of the senate Judiciary Committee. That’s why, despite big money/strong-arm tactics/profligate lies/temporary democrat primary registration crossovers (all committed by the Specter forces alone), Pat Toomey, a virtual unknown, came within 1.5% of winning the Pennsylvania Republican senate nomination in April. The four-term incumbent Specter won by a mere 16,000 votes, with more than one million votes cast. And Toomey would have won by a comfortable margin, had the President and our junior senator placed principle before political protocol and endorsed him rather than his unworthy opponent, who sports a long history of deceit and betrayal.
I am also certain that Toomey would have won the senate seat handily on Tuesday, and not only would we not be faced with the specter of a Specter chairmanship of Judiciary, but we would have a junior senator with major Reagan-esque leanings sitting in one of Pennsylvania’s senate seats. But, as they say, that’s water under the bridge. I simply hope that President Bush now has a new, and exquisitely personal, understanding of the phrase biting the hand that feeds you. Arlen Specter has one mean and powerful bite.
To those Pennsylvanians who have followed Specter’s infamous four-term career, it reads like an immutable script: (1) enter, stage right, having counted on moderates and conservatives to return you to the stage to begin with; (2) spend about five and a half years moving consistently stage left, while arrogantly defending yourself against those who, dutifully and sincerely, remind you that you are not playing the role you were cast to play; and then (3) half-heartedly meander back toward the right for the six months preceding your next re-election bid, hoping that the move right will eclipse the previous five and a half years of leftist role-playing. It always worked … until Pat Toomey shined a spotlight on the shenanigans. We’re wise to you now, Arlen. And it’s a good thing for you this is most likely your last term. Toomey would defeat you resoundingly in 2010.
Specter’s duplicity dates back to the mid-1960s, when he sat on the Warren Commission and formulated the ‘single-bullet theory’ to explain Oswald’s assassination of JFK. There are many right-minded people who believe he is responsible for a major cover-up of that crime, and its ramifications.
Around twenty years later, when Ronald Reagan nominated Jeff Sessions (who now providentially/coincidentally sits on the Judiciary Committee with Arlen) for a federal judgeship, Specter betrayed his constituents by voting with the democrats in killing the nomination. This betrayal marked the beginning of the now entirely too common act of killing the nominations of those with whom you don’t share a political ideology … and the Constitution be damned. Before Sessions’ defeat, a federal judicial nominee had only been turned down once in the four decades since the Roosevelt administration. So Arlen Specter effectively set the stage for politicized judicial confirmations – a mighty arrogant, and toxic, unconstitutional precedent that laid the groundwork for the awarding of judgeships based on leftist political ideology. And the liberty-eroding effect of this perversion of power on every aspect of American society has been monumental.
And Arlen continued wielding his leftist-agenda-driven power the following year, when Reagan nominated Robert Bork to sit on the Supreme Court. Bork had a sterling resume as a judge, and a Yale law professor (one needs only read his Slouching Towards Gomorrah to comprehend the sheer genius, judicial purity, and uncompromising allegiance to the Constitution that this giant of a man represents). Specter played a major role in Bork’s defeat, and I, for one, will never forgive him for his vicious character assassination of a man whose shoes he isn’t fit to shine.
Some believe that Specter regained his principles (although it’s difficult to regain that which one never possessed to begin with) when he defended Clarence Thomas against the left’s attacks in 1991. But one only needs to look at the timing of the Thomas hearings to understand Specter’s newfound fairness. The hearings occurred less than a year before Specter’s next re-election bid. Too little time to erase from the memory of conservative Pennsylvanians yet another betrayal. So he was forced to do what was right … simply because of the timing of the hearings.
Specter’s final betrayal occurred during the Clinton senate impeachment trial in 1998, during which he could have played a major role in ridding us of the most immoral, treasonous, criminal President we have ever known. Instead, he effectively ignored the US Constitution, and instead relied on (purported) ‘Scottish Law’ to allow the President to continue his reign of horror. He asserted that under the venerable ‘Scottish Law’ (which appears to trump the American Constitution), there are three possible verdicts in an impeachment trial: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. Voting ‘not proven’ (and enjoying the dubious distinction of being the only senator to do so) allowed him a cowardly retreat from alienating either his genuine leftist base, or the conservative/moderate supporters he needed to fool, yet again.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was so taken aback by the stupidity of Specter’s argument that he ordered Specter’s verdict to be recorded as ‘not guilty’.
And Arlen Specter’s probable lame duck status in this, his fifth term, means that, without concern for re-election for the first time in a quarter of a cerntury, he can move left over the next four years … and remain there.
Arlen Specter’s crimes against our republic have been many. But I believe the four above are the most grievous. He should not even be sitting in the US Senate, much less chairing the committee that will have enormous impact on the seating of federal judges, in an era in which activist judges have assumed the arrogant role of declaring the Constitution irrelevant when it comes to matters of leftist societal engineering.
There has never been a more opportune, or more urgent, time in our history for a President and congress to remain true to the conservative base that placed them in office. As regards (1) through (3) above, any compromises with leftist ideologues, and their barking cohorts in the media and academia, to which this administration and congress agree will amount to a betrayal of the populations of that overwhelming number of red states that sent a resounding message on Tuesday that they want American back on track.
The forty-third President, and members of the 109th congress, must govern like the conservative leaders they purport to be. The red states, and many inhabitants of the blue, believe it’s a matter of now or never.
Senate Majority Leader:
Republican Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
~ joanie
Am I allowed to ask him more than the two questions? ;) (I want to ask him if he expects to use a plaid litmus test in judge confirmations, or does Scottish law only apply in impeachment hearings.)
I'll be calling Santorum tomorrow. I heard a Fox News report tonight that said that the committee members are being swamped with calls. We'll see how much they listen to the people.
If it's any consolation, it didn't work on the Democrats who're having trouble accepting President Bush won a 2nd term either. Like you, they're still having difficulty dealing with the will of the respective electorate.
You're condescending to the wrong person, fella.
Joanie, you gonna chew him up and spit him out, or do you want me to take this one for you? :-)
I'll be calling from work this morning. Thanks for the heads up, Joanie.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Sorry, I don't agree with her, I don't care who she is.
Sen Santorum is a reliable advocate. Understand he has to remain viable to continue in his seat. To have Sen Santorum seen as derailing Sen Specter could have unwanted repercussions. This is tactically stupid. In fact, even if specter were denied the chairmenship, Sen. Santorum should be seen as supporting him. Why put his seat in jeopardy?
When you use the word betrayal, you miss the point totally.
We need to be tactically smart. Along those lines, Freepers are doing the right thing by putting pressure on their senators. This will make the price easier to extract. In fact, not only could we extract something from Specter but perhaps from the other moderates. The key is to vote for the nuclear option. Make that a quid pro quo for keeping Specter. The senators can argue that their base is putting pressure on them to oust Specter and the only way to satisfy them is with the nuclear option. If this does not prevail then Specter could be denied the chairmanship with the rationale that the moderates had an opportunity to keep Specter but the base could not be molified with the status quo.
Joanie, I realize that I am addressing someone who has been right there on the scene. The issue is too important to let anger or frustration get the better of you. I fully appreciate how heartfelt that you feel. We need to focus on how to win the war. If Bush can get his judges through, I am totally satisfied. Obviously if the choice is simply a Specter chairmanship or not - I would say the hell with him. This decision however comes with a price. If ousting Specter results in having to compromise in a Supreme Court judge, we have lost the war.
Even though we appear to see this Santorum/Specter thing from very different points of view, I appreciate the courtesy and tact you have maintained in this debate. You are a gentleman.
With that said … :)
I believe your use of the terms ‘repercussions’, ‘viability’, ‘should be seen as supporting him’, ‘comes with a price’ … are all realistic, but unfortunate, considerations that spring from the you scratch my back/I’ll scratch yours philosophy of the modern American political process. Much of politics these days amounts to nothing more than attractively-packaged extortion.
The more emphasis a leader places on the potential political repercussions of his decisions, the more right and wrong and adherence to principle are relegated to ‘afterthought’ status.
I’d like to know your thoughts about the following:
Pat Toomey (an uncompromising Reagan-esque conservative) lost the Pennsylvania Republican primary to Arlen Specter by 1.5% of the votes cast. Most experts believe that the President’s and Rick Santorum’s endorsements of Specter were worth far more than that 1.5%. So, in effect, those endorsements provided the margin of victory -- and then some -- for Specter.
Many also believe that Pat Toomey stood an excellent chance of winning the general election as well, against democrat Joe Hoeffel.
So logic would dictate that, if the President and Santorum had not endorsed Arlen Specter back in April, Pat Toomey (a principled conservative, rather than a Republican-in-name-only) would be sworn into the senate in January, and John Kyl (yet another principled conservative) would most likely be the front runner for the chairmanship of the senate Judiciary Committee. Arlen Specter would have gone the way of Tom Daschle. The need for this debate over the prospect of Specter chairing that all-important committee would be non-existent, and I daresay both you and I would be much happier about the makeup of the senate as a whole, and the makeup of the Judiciary Committee in particular.
But that isn’t happening. Why? Because, back in April, Rick Santorum placed ‘remaining viable’, and ‘unwanted repurcussions’, and ‘the price of non-support’ before allegiance to conservative principle. Had the senator turned his back on considerations of political process, and focused instead on choosing right over wrong, all of us (he included) would be better off today.
He is now facing an opportunity to redeem himself. He can either (once again) bow to politics as usual (with its intrinsic spider web of exigencies), or he can do what he knows is right and support for election to the chairmanship from the members of the Judiciary Committee a man who has the best interests of America, and uncompromising reverence for the Constitution, at the forefront of any decision he makes. Rick Santorum, and you and I, know that Arlen Specter is not that man.
When concern for appearances and convenient alliances with acknowledged ideological enemies cloud the decision-making process to the point where the ultimate goal (i.e., the preservation of life, liberty, and sovereignty) is compromised, such political considerations become toxic – not only to the decision-maker, but to those who elected him to represent them.
I don’t know what, if any, religious beliefs you embrace. But scripture is replete with admonitions against compromise of principle. Isaiah 33:15 assures us that he who walks righteously and speaks what is right, who rejects gain from extortion, and keeps his hand from accepting bribes will prevail. Veiled, but powerful, forms of political extortion and bribes permeate the process we are debating here. And I would hope that a man of Rick Santorum’s strongly-voiced Christian character would rise above it all, and place his faith in doing what he knows is right, rather than what is politically expedient (yet again).
~ joanie
Specter himself created the firestorm of discord amongst both his peers within the GOP, and conservatives.
It is HE who crossed the line and disgraced HIMSELF by violated political protocol, insulting his constituency, and openly plotted to invoke his own will and agenda upon the President, his party, and a majority of American voters.
Heck, if this reptilian political transvestite -- Arlen Specter -- is the key to Republican nirvana and appointing Supreme Court justices, why aren't we celebrating his re-election as President right now instead of Dubya?
Specter's presence in the Judiciary Committee at this point would be poison. Dubya knows the score, Santorum knows the score, even so-called "moderates" Chafee, Collins, and McCain not only know the score, but know political hari-kari when they see it. Fortunately, the GOP has 54 other Senators in the bullpen.
NOT ONLY would the status of conservative GOP SC judge appointments be jeopardized by the erratic Arlen Specter infecting the Judiciary Committee, but the subsequent backlash by betrayed pro-life party organizers and soldiers will immobilize and flatten the GOP's momentum in the near future.
The choice SHOULD be easy for both Dubya Bush and Rick Santorum this time around, and the GOP will be stronger for it.
When you look at it that way the whole thing makes me physically sick. And Santorum is thinking of shafting us again!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.